Willy is such a hacker he actually wiffs in pre game BP. He's an all or nothing hitter who doesn't have a clue what the strike zone is. Read his capsule in BP2k2.

RichH55

03-01-2002, 02:32 AM

I don't even know what team Willie Mo is on...shows either he isnt the next big thing or that im just out of it

RichH55

03-01-2002, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by RichH55
I don't even know what team Willie Mo is on...shows either he isnt the next big thing or that im just out of it

its the Reds....fair enough...yeah BP doesnt say a ton about ability...more about his situation....nurture over nature apparentluy

Vsahajpal

03-01-2002, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

Crede 94? That's pretty rough. Is Willy Mo Pena ahead of Crede by any chance because if he is I've lost even more respect for BA.

Yes, he's 65.

I talked to a few scouts the other day, and they both said the same thing. Sabermetric evaluation is more useful when evaluating major leaguers, but falls short in evaluating prospects. After giving it thought, I have to agree.

I don't necessarily agree with Pena's ranking, but I do think much more highly of BA's than any other.

Baseball America's 13th annual Top 100 Prospects list is based on each player's ceiling and the likelihood that he reaches that potential. All players who haven't exceeded the rookie limits of 130 at-bats or 50 innings (with no consideration toward service time) were considered. Editor Allan Simpson, managing editor Will Lingo, executive editor Jim Callis and associate editor Josh Boyd compiled the Top 100 after consulting with general managers, scouting directors, farm directors, scouts, managers and instructors. Callis wrote the summaries.

I think its ridiculous to grade a prospect without looking at him, as BP and other SABR evaluators do.

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by RichH55

its the Reds....fair enough...yeah BP doesnt say a ton about ability...more about his situation....nurture over nature apparentluy

Between his situation and his 177/33 K/BB ratio (holy **** that's horrible!) I'd say he's barely a prospect. Sickels was nice and gave him a C+. There's another book you should checkout Rich, the Minor League Scouting Notebook. I'd say it's the next best book of the offseason after the BP. The Stats Baseball Scoreboard is another nifty pickup too.

RichH55

03-01-2002, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

Yes, he's 65.

I talked to a few scouts the other day, and they both said the same thing. Sabermetric evaluation is more useful when evaluating major leaguers, but falls short in evaluating prospects. After giving it thought, I have to agree.

I don't necessarily agree with Pena's ranking, but I do think much more highly of BA's than any other.

Baseball America's 13th annual Top 100 Prospects list is based on each player's ceiling and the likelihood that he reaches that potential. All players who haven't exceeded the rookie limits of 130 at-bats or 50 innings (with no consideration toward service time) were considered. Editor Allan Simpson, managing editor Will Lingo, executive editor Jim Callis and associate editor Josh Boyd compiled the Top 100 after consulting with general managers, scouting directors, farm directors, scouts, managers and instructors. Callis wrote the summaries.

I think its ridiculous to grade a prospect without looking at him, as BP and other SABR evaluators do.

BP's write up on Pena is almost all about intangible stuff rather than the numbers......Essentially they state that his contract will push the Reds to put him up levels before he is ready thus retarding his development...sounds like they looked at him, eh? "He has a good hot at growing up to be Jose Guillen"

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

I talked to a few scouts the other day, and they both said the same thing. Sabermetric evaluation is more useful when evaluating major leaguers, but falls short in evaluating prospects. After giving it thought, I have to agree.

I think its ridiculous to grade a prospect without looking at him, as BP and other SABR evaluators do.

Clearifying things: BP doesn't evaluate prospects without seeing them play. As they have said and what a lot of people don't get. The difference between statheads and the flat-Earth society isn't that statheads don't read the scouting reports and watch the games. The difference is when the scouting report and the stats disagree the statheads believe the stats.

As for SABR, the guys in SABR aren't necessarily statheads. Statheads are just a part of SABR. The BP and John Sickels, statheads do at least as good of a job at evaluating prospects as Baseball America.

Vsahajpal

03-01-2002, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by RichH55

BP's write up on Pena is almost all about intangible stuff rather than the numbers......Essentially they state that his contract will push the Reds to put him up levels before he is ready thus retarding his development...sounds like they looked at him, eh? "He has a good hot at growing up to be Jose Guillen"

No it doesn't at all. They don't have scouts, they sit back, look at the stats, see Pena's low walk/high strikeout total, and write snide comments about him. It gets tiresome.

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

No it doesn't at all. They don't have scouts, they sit back, look at the stats, see Pena's low walk/high strikeout total, and write snide comments about him. It gets tiresome.

Well if you actually read the BP you'd know that despite not having scouts like Baseball America they attend minor league games and have contacts in every major league front office. They don't just sit back see a bad K/BB ratio and make snide comments. They just don't take players who don't have baseball skills seriously. Take a guy like Jose Reyes for example, sure he doesn't have the plate discipline but he is a real prospect and is more than a trackstar who can bench 250 and got put in centerfield. The BP treats him like one.

Vsahajpal

03-01-2002, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

Well if you actually read the BP you'd know that despite not having scouts like Baseball America they attend minor league games and have contacts in every major league front office. They don't just sit back see a bad K/BB ratio and make snide comments. They just don't take players who don't have baseball skills seriously. Take a guy like Jose Reyes for example, sure he doesn't have the plate discipline but he is a real prospect and is more than a trackstar who can bench 250 and got put in centerfield. The BP treats him like one.

Who's attending these games? BA has a staff of scouts, they talk to SD's, GM's, etc. Who does BP consult? Its hard to take them seriously when John Stephens, Jason Lane, Chris Snelling, and Ken Harvey are in their top 40.

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

Who's attending these games? BA has a staff of scouts, they talk to SD's, GM's, etc. Who does BP consult? Its hard to take them seriously when John Stephens, Jason Lane, Chris Snelling, and Ken Harvey are in their top 40.

What's so crazy about expecting guys who have performed well to keep performing well? I think it's a much better strategy than backing guys like Cristian Guerrero and Willy Mo Pena who can run fast but don't have a clue how to play baseball. At what point does a prospect have to actually show some success? How can BA expect guys with physical tools who don't do anything in the minors to all of a sudden flip a switch? John Stephens may not be able to break glass but he's been able to get hitters out and even rack up impressive strikeout rates. How can BA list Jack Cust, the only player Arizona has that can remotely be considered a prospect 4th in the organization's top prospect list?

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

Who's attending these games? BA has a staff of scouts, they talk to SD's, GM's, etc. Who does BP consult? Its hard to take them seriously when John Stephens, Jason Lane, Chris Snelling, and Ken Harvey are in their top 40.

As I said BP has contacts in every front office, they also speak with GMs and scouting directors. As for their approach, last year they had Jimmy Rollins 9th. We know how he turned out, BA had him 31st behind guys like Donnie Brdiges. BP also had Adam Dunn pegged higher than BA. You act like the BP team makes fool predictions that fall way off the mark when it's BA that had Josh Hamilton as it's top prospect last year.

Vsahajpal

03-01-2002, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

As I said BP has contacts in every front office, they also speak with GMs and scouting directors. As for their approach, last year they had Jimmy Rollins 9th. We know how he turned out, BA had him 31st behind guys like Donnie Brdiges. BP also had Adam Dunn pegged higher than BA. You act like the BP team makes fool predictions that fall way off the mark when it's BA that had Josh Hamilton as it's top prospect last year.

And Hamilton deserved the spot, like I said, BA consults with nearly every possible legit source, those in the know, before going to press. Dunn was still ranked high, BP didn't even include Josh Beckett. Wasn't Ryan Anderson rated BP's #1 prospect? They also ranked Craig Wilson, for crying out loud. As for Cust, sorry, but he has to be able to play a position in the NL, apparently BP can't find a ratio measuring defense.

What's so crazy about expecting guys who have performed well to keep performing well? I think it's a much better strategy than backing guys like Cristian Guerrero and Willy Mo Pena who can run fast but don't have a clue how to play baseball. At what point does a prospect have to actually show some success?

Because, they totally ignore tools based evaluation, which is just as sound as stats based when evaluating a prospect.
Pena, as a 19 year-old is raw, but based on potential how can he not be there? His ceiling is certainly higher than a guy like Jason Lane, who as a 25 year-old puts up numbers in a hitters league at double A. He had over 50 extra-base hits, hit 26 homeruns, stole 26 bases, and has a cannon for an arm. As he matures, is it totally out of the question that he won't improve his plate discipline?

btw, where was Alfonso Soriano on BP's list last year? We all know what he did.

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

And Hamilton deserved the spot, like I said, BA consults with nearly every possible legit source, those in the know, before going to press. Dunn was still ranked high, BP didn't even include Josh Beckett. Wasn't Ryan Anderson rated BP's #1 prospect? They also ranked Craig Wilson, for crying out loud. As for Cust, sorry, but he has to be able to play a position in the NL, apparently BP can't find a ratio measuring defense.

If I am saying that scouts aren't as reliable as stats and use Josh Hamilton as an example the you say Hamilton deserved it because the scouts said he's good, how is that a counter-argument? BP saw the flaws and the risk in Hamilton and had him at 13. Now if they completely ignored scouting reports he probably wouldn't be that high so don't go too far with your "they ignore scouts" thing.

btw, where was Alfonso Soriano on BP's list last year? We all know what he did.

Okay the BP missed him but how in hell can you justify placing Mark Prior, a guy who has never appeared in a professional game and a pitcher who naturally has an increased risk of injury ahead of Hank Blalock who has torn up the minors? That's just stupid. BA is fast becoming a joke of a publication that gives no value to actual baseball skills.

FarWestChicago

03-01-2002, 01:43 PM

Am I the only one enjoying this thread? Keep at it guys! This is good stuff!! :smile:

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Am I the only one enjoying this thread? Keep at it guys! This is good stuff!! :smile:

I can't figure out why scouts dont' have more appreciation for plate discipline considering their knowledge of physical abilities. I would think they make the connection that there are very few people with the kind of hand-eye coordination it takes to make good contact swinging at virtually everything like your typical Will Mo Pena type prosect does. Plate discipline isn't just about walking 80 times although the walks are a nice production boost.

If a batter controls the strike zone he lays off the pitches which are tough to hit and only swings at the pitches in the zone he can handle. Plate discipline is a skill, it's a way to put the tools scouts talk about to use. Tools guys like Pena are nice but a buzzsaw is a tool and I don't know damn thing abotu how to use it so it wouldn't help me if I needed to cut something. Having tremdous power is a tool that Willy Mo Pena has but if he doesn't know how to wait on his pitch and work a pitcher it means nothing. That ability shows up in the walk to strike out ratio. It's not that difficult of a concept.

czalgosz

03-01-2002, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

I can't figure out why scouts dont' have more appreciation for plate discipline considering their knowledge of physical abilities. I would think they make the connection that there are very few people with the kind of hand-eye coordination it takes to make good contact swinging at virtually everything like your typical Will Mo Pena type prosect does. Plate discipline isn't just about walking 80 times although the walks are a nice production boost.

If a batter controls the strike zone he lays off the pitches which are tough to hit and only swings at the pitches in the zone he can handle. Plate discipline is a skill, it's a way to put the tools scouts talk about to use. Tools guys like Pena are nice but a buzzsaw is a tool and I don't know damn thing abotu how to use it so it wouldn't help me if I needed to cut something. Having tremdous power is a tool that Willy Mo Pena has but if he doesn't know how to wait on his pitch and work a pitcher it means nothing. That ability shows up in the walk to strike out ratio. It's not that difficult of a concept.

Well, people who support tools-based scouting say that you can coach discipline, you can develop a guy's hands in the field, but you can't teach speed or strength. So they go after guys who can run fast or throw hard or hit a long way rather than guys who know how to play baseball. In other words, they draft athletes, not ballplayers.

This is a ridiculous theory, IMO, and teams that follow that philosophy tend to have terrible farm systems.

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by czalgosz

Well, people who support tools-based scouting say that you can coach discipline, you can develop a guy's hands in the field, but you can't teach speed or strength. So they go after guys who can run fast or throw hard or hit a long way rather than guys who know how to play baseball. In other words, they draft athletes, not ballplayers.

This is a ridiculous theory, IMO, and teams that follow that philosophy tend to have terrible farm systems.

It's the "You can't put in what God left out" theory of scouting. To be successful with tools players like that you have to go for depth like with starting pitching prospects. Pitchers are unpredictable and could blow their arm out anytime, tools players are unpredictable, you never know which one will learn to play baseball. For every Sammy Sosa or Jermaine Dye who did learn there are 20 Juan Encarnacions. There was a nice article on this a couple weeks back ont he BP website:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020208scherer.html

Randar68

03-01-2002, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by czalgosz
This is a ridiculous theory, IMO, and teams that follow that philosophy tend to have terrible farm systems.

Then you must not have been paying attention to where the Sox' best players have been coming from for the past ten years then....

czalgosz

03-01-2002, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Randar68

Then you must not have been paying attention to where the Sox' best players have been coming from for the past ten years then....

What does that mean? The Sox don't have many "tools" players on the team, other than guys that they traded for, like Julio Ramirez or Royce Clayton. Carlos Lee is about the only toolsy player that the Sox drafted, and guys like Thomas and Ordonez were picked up because they could hit, not because they potentially could hit.

Sox pitching prospects don't have great velocity, which is what tools-based scouts look for, instead they have intelligence and know how to pitch.

LongDistanceFan

03-01-2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by czalgosz

Well, people who support tools-based scouting say that you can coach discipline, you can develop a guy's hands in the field, but you can't teach speed or strength. So they go after guys who can run fast or throw hard or hit a long way rather than guys who know how to play baseball. In other words, they draft athletes, not ballplayers.

This is a ridiculous theory, IMO, and teams that follow that philosophy tend to have terrible farm systems. and there is one other thing you got to add which i have agreed with you is the bat speed.

Vsahajpal

03-01-2002, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

If I am saying that scouts aren't as reliable as stats and use Josh Hamilton as an example the you say Hamilton deserved it because the scouts said he's good, how is that a counter-argument? BP saw the flaws and the risk in Hamilton and had him at 13. Now if they completely ignored scouting reports he probably wouldn't be that high so don't go too far with your "they ignore scouts" thing.

Okay the BP missed him but how in hell can you justify placing Mark Prior, a guy who has never appeared in a professional game and a pitcher who naturally has an increased risk of injury ahead of Hank Blalock who has torn up the minors? That's just stupid. BA is fast becoming a joke of a publication that gives no value to actual baseball skills.

You never mentioned Hamilton's stats, when I see what he did as a 19 year-old at A-ball where the median age is 21, I'm very impressed. I am not impressed when a guy like Jason Lane puts up numbers in a severe hitters league at the age of 25, when the median age is 23.4. BP saw the flaws and risk in Hamilton? The only reason he dropped was due to a prolongued injury that ruined his entire year. Did BP use extra-sensory resources and collectively determine he'd get injured?

And I'm not saying they ignore scouting reports, I just know that they don't have the resources BA does, and thus cannot go and scout the amount of prospects BA does. As a result, they base their evaluations primarily on stats, which I think is a mistake. Admittedly, BA projects based on ceiling, which is a foreign word to BP.

read BA's chat today, and you'll find the answer. If you think Mark Prior has no actual baseball skill...

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

And I'm not saying they ignore scouting reports, I just know that they don't have the resources BA does, and thus cannot go and scout the amount of prospects BA does. As a result, they base their evaluations primarily on stats, which I think is a mistake. Admittedly, BA projects based on ceiling, which is a foreign word to BP.

That's another foolish comment. Have you ever actually read the BP? Not their website, that's a little different. Have you read one of the books? I've read the last three and a lot of your arguments like the BP ignoring ceiling are silly. The BP pays attention to ceiling but what they see in Josh Hamilton that Baseball America may like to ignore is that he had weak plate discipline and he's in a bad organization. To reach his ceiling he has to improve his plate discipline something not likely in the D-Rays minor league system. So instead of a foolish #1 ranking he was 13th, more sensibly.

LongDistanceFan

03-01-2002, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

That's another foolish comment. Have you ever actually read the BP? Not their website, that's a little different. Have you read one of the books? I've read the last three and a lot of your arguments like the BP ignoring ceiling are silly. The BP pays attention to ceiling but what they see in Josh Hamilton that Baseball America may like to ignore is that he had weak plate discipline and he's in a bad organization. To reach his ceiling he has to improve his plate discipline something not likely in the D-Rays minor league system. So instead of a foolish #1 ranking he was 13th, more sensibly. hey kermit....... i was gone for a while and i can back.......... but since i been back, i notice that you have been a little aggressive recently esp with people who do not agree with you or you with them......... something like what bmr would do................ why?????????

or i may be wrong.....

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
hey kermit....... i was gone for a while and i can back.......... but since i been back, i notice that you have been a little aggressive recently esp with people who do not agree with you or you with them......... something like what bmr would do................ why?????????

or i may be wrong.....

I dunno about other threads but in this case it's intentional. I get tired of stupid, unfound criticism of statheads like "statheads don't watch games" and "statheads don't listen to scouts."

LongDistanceFan

03-01-2002, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

I dunno about other threads but in this case it's intentional. I get tired of stupid, unfound criticism of statheads like "statheads don't watch games" and "statheads don't listen to scouts." ok.. thanks.......

Vsahajpal

03-01-2002, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

That's another foolish comment. Have you ever actually read the BP? Not their website, that's a little different. Have you read one of the books? I've read the last three and a lot of your arguments like the BP ignoring ceiling are silly. The BP pays attention to ceiling but what they see in Josh Hamilton that Baseball America may like to ignore is that he had weak plate discipline and he's in a bad organization. To reach his ceiling he has to improve his plate discipline something not likely in the D-Rays minor league system. So instead of a foolish #1 ranking he was 13th, more sensibly.

He's 19 years old! There are very few 19 year-olds with such refined pitch recognition and discipline. Guys like Burroughs and Blalock are given their due by BA, they are top 5 guys, same with Nick Johnson, Carlos Pena, etc. the BP is clearly performance based analysis, which is why Juan Rivera, Jason Lane, Jack Cust, John Stephens, etc. make their list.

The only foolish thing is discrediting BA, who has far and away much more contact with GM's, scouts, and scouting directors. They compile the lists; the BP may consult with MLB personnel, but not to the extent that BA does.

If they did, wouldn't their lists be as extensive as BA's? Wouldn't they have a prospects plus section available? Wouldn't they do team prospect lists?

Yes they would.

Vsahajpal

03-01-2002, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

I dunno about other threads but in this case it's intentional. I get tired of stupid, unfound criticism of statheads like "statheads don't watch games" and "statheads don't listen to scouts."

I was passing along the shared sentiment of two MLB scouts who think that sabermetric evaluation is more useful for major leaguers than minor league prospects. If you take offense to that, I could care less. You mean to tell me the guys at BP will go to Tacoma dozens of times a year to evaluate Ryan Anderson, or they'll travel to Round Rock in Texas to watch Carlos Hernandez 10-15 times a year? If so, can you give me proof of that?

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

I was passing along the shared sentiment of two MLB scouts who think that sabermetric evaluation is more useful for major leaguers than minor league prospects. If you take offense to that, I could care less. You mean to tell me the guys at BP will go to Tacoma dozens of times a year to evaluate Ryan Anderson, or they'll travel to Round Rock in Texas to watch Carlos Hernandez 10-15 times a year? If so, can you give me proof of that?

Of course they don't but they talk to people who do. It's not like Jim Callis himself sees these guys 15 times a year before he does the top 100. And you weren't just passing along info dude you clearly had some of your own things to say in there.

Vsahajpal

03-01-2002, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by kermittheefrog

Of course they don't but they talk to people who do. It's not like Jim Callis himself sees these guys 15 times a year before he does the top 100. And you weren't just passing along info dude you clearly had some of your own things to say in there.

Only after you attacked a largely tools and performance based evaluator in Baseball America. You attacked the right away! Don't lose sight of that fact.

kermittheefrog

03-01-2002, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Vsahajpal

Only after you attacked a largely tools and performance based evaluator in Baseball America. You attacked the right away! Don't lose sight of that fact.

Well I think the big difference here is this. I subscribed to BA for the last year so I am very familiar with what they offer so I think my criticism is fair. Based on the fact you didn't answer when I asked I assume you don't own any of the BP books. So I'm ripping BA from a position of familiarity while you dont' seem familiar with the BP team at all.